A Redistribution Parable: Casey at the Bat

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 4/16/09. Read the online newspaper version here or check out the print column every Thursday or Friday.

Growing up, Casey was by far the best baseball player among his friends. He was born with talent, size, and strength, and had a father who was a former professional baseball player. As a result, he had expert coaching and guidance to go along with incredible hand-eye coordination and power. When he reached high school, Casey realized his talent and skill might afford him the opportunity to pursue every child’s dream: To play professional baseball. So, he became the hardest worker on the team, lifting weights, eating right, and tirelessly working on his swing.

By the time Casey was a senior, he had already broken the county home run record, been named to the all-state team, and was being closely watched by professional scouts. Then something strange happened. Every time Casey stepped to the plate his senior year, umpires immediately called two strikes on him-before he even saw a pitch. Instead of starting with an 0-0 count like everyone else, he now started down 0-2; everyone else got three strikes, Casey only got one.

League officials and umpires had gotten together in the offseason to discuss Casey’s dominance. They decided that it was unfair to all of the other players in the league for Casey to be so much better-they had to level the playing field. Shouldn’t everyone have the opportunity to play professional baseball? Shouldn’t everyone be guaranteed the same level of success? When Casey hit a home run, weren’t the other, less talented, less privileged players suffering because of his success? In sports, after all, one person’s victory also means one person’s loss. The only way to make things fair, they determined, was to give the pitchers an advantage over Casey before he got up to bat.

As the season progressed, Casey began to complain to league officials. So they sat him down and explained their thought process: 1. He was born with more talent than the other players-that was unfair; 2. His father was an ex-major leaguer who could give him special coaching-that was unfair; 3. His parents had more money than other parents in the league, so he was able to use advanced training equipment and eat better food-that was unfair; 4. Yes he worked hard, but that hard work only enhanced his abilities beyond the other players’-that was unfair. If he really cared about his community, he wouldn’t have a problem sacrificing his success for the success of others.

League officials were happy with their work, but soon realized more needed to be done. Casey was now just an average player in the league, but what about the other good players? Not everyone was the same just yet. So, the league developed a complex statistical measurement system that ensured players below the average got an advantage (they could start with anywhere from a 1-0 to a 3-0 count), and players above the average would be treated like Casey. Of course, to support the system, they formed a Bureau of Fairness Control to oversee each test case and matchup. Now everything would be fair.

But wait, some teams were winning games and others were losing. All games now ended in a tie. And what about the players who got cut during tryouts? Now anyone who tried out would make the team, no matter their ability, work ethic, or experience. It had to be fair.

But soon, baseball lost its appeal. There was no motivation to work hard or succeed, and the competition the game was founded on had evaporated. League officials didn’t understand. Shouldn’t the players want everyone to be happy? Besides, the league was guaranteeing success for everyone. And of course, it was fair.

Casey’s story does not stray far from the foundational philosophy of many of today’s liberal thinkers. Far reaching social policies like welfare, universal healthcare, extreme progressive tax rates, and mortgage bailouts simply put up a façade of fairness and equality. They couch themselves in eloquent rhetoric like, “All Americans have a right to be healthy,” and “We have the responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves.”

The arguments evoke emotion and compassion, and stir up masses of people placing their faith in government as the answer. In many ways, this façade led to the election of our current President, whose philosophy of government has yielded a pork-laden stimulus and budget heavy on spending in liberal social initiatives.

But justice is not found in forceful redistribution, nor is prosperity bred from failed attempts at equality. True justice is, as our founders so masterfully stated, found in life, liberty, and the pursuit, not the forceful guarantee, of happiness.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net